 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) No, the research dollars will be spent where there is the *perception* of best return. Further, it may be simply be the perception of the best short-term return. And just to add to that, it may involve more resources than a single company can (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) the (...) For research of course one can't use pure cost/benefit analysis. There has to be risk and potential analysis also. Also, some amount of basic research must continue, so that you don't purely allocate money by ranking all the possible (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Further, he must by definition be either a full vegetarian or a full cannibal, at least in principle. Dave! (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Does this mean that if you contracted a life-threatening illness, you would refuse any treatment that in large part resulted from animal testing? If not, why not? eric (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) When I first read this I just knew (incorrectly) that it would end with something like "infringing on my trade dress." Oh well. Hey Lar, do you prefer Lar or Larry? (...) Wow. I'd heard that about NYC inhabitants, but...wow. European friends (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Oh, OK, Thanks. :-) (...) Something that struck me while reading Ed's and Larry's responses to all this is that ultimately it's not a matter of need. We _DO_ take moral and financial responsibility for these things. If you sleep around, you (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) - (...) than (...) It was a coin flip. IMO, its not a yes/no, black/white question. (...) someone (...) Why is it weaseling to expect people to assume the responsibility for risks they did not know of? Did you know that Singapore (I think it (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Sorry if you were offended by the all caps Lar, didn't even realize I typed it that way (6:00a.m. pre-coffee). Give me a break, if I was going to name call, I'd do a whole lot better than that. :') (...) So in essence, you are saying that, (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Oh my gosh! Something that returned close to the original point! :-) This is not unreasonable - put the money were it will do the most good. Lots of times my wife and I decide we want a number of things and there isn't enough money to go (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) ED: My name is Lar, not LAR. By spelling it or capitalizing it in a way that I don't choose, you are trying to use a form of namecalling. You know better. people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they (...) (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) engineer of the ME generation. :') (...) Simple, its not a black and white, yes or no, question. (...) It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and LAR, people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
I'm not sure why you two continue to intermittantly duke it out. Larry thinks you're an evil commie, and you think he's an evil...umm...I can't think of a good word...robber baron? (...) How so? (...) That's not really true. Obviously I agree with (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A piece everyone needs lots of... Chairs.
|
|
(...) Yeah right. Not even TLC would be dumb enough to sell something that doesn't generate profit. Molded plastic does not cost alot to produce once you have the eqipment and molds. (...) That is my point though. DVDs cost far less then VHS and (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Was that really a coin flip? I doubt it. I really truly believe (see your weaseling below) that you don't think people ever need to take responsibility for ANYTHING, even if they do know all the risks. Stating that there are unknown risks (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
(...) Mmmmm... sounds good. :-) Glad we got this settled, I guess we're off-topic for .debate 'coz we're agreeing <grin, duck and run>. HAND, -Shiri (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) economy (...) the (...) social (...) earmarking (...) other (...) (getting ready to duck and run) Another point to raise about the issue of lobbyists getting to decide how money gets spent: If one feels that (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
:^) There, now. Let's all have some milk and cookies. (and LEGO) ~M (...) not the (...) Mark's (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
(...) Same here - sorry for that. I guess my post WAS badly worded (and it's not the first time either, dang, I should watch my english) and when I read Mark's reply, I got pretty heated up... sorry Mark, and apology accepted. No hard feelings? (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
|
(...) Ummmm.... which lobbying groups are you talking about that do anything other than stuff money in politicians' and parties' campaign funds? I think its pretty clear that's what Larry was getting at, not talking about people (or groups) giving (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
|
I responded a bit strongly, though it -was- intended to be sarcasm. That's why I apologized... I didn't want any permanently hurt feelings. ~M (...) the (...) when (...) right (...) the (...) misconstrued as anger (...) didn't (...) very well on (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
